The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Indy, I have noticed that you like to repeat the story about the angel with the flaming sword commanding Joseph to secretly take extra wives. Doesn't that story sounds a little... ummmm... "convenient" to you? That's either the truth or a pretty colorful attempt to get Emma (and other women) on board. Either way, it doesn't appear that Emma bought it.

So does this mean you are going with the "lying for the Lord" defense as well?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

2. The delay (until 1978) in changing the policy was due to apostles (and society in general along with the general body of the church) not being ready to accept the change.

I would amemd your statement above before I could agree to it ... even then It is too simplistic.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Back to my point, is God limited to revealing new commandments only if the people are first fully prepared to embrace them?

I don't think God is limited to anything. But of course, that cuts both ways and you can't rule out this scenario. Personally, it seems much more plausible to me than the idea that God is a racist or that there is some hidden, mysterious reason why he would prolong such a practice.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I don't think God is limited to anything. But of course, that cuts both ways and you can't rule out this scenario. Personally, it seems much more plausible to me than the idea that God is a racist or that there is some hidden, mysterious reason why he would prolong such a practice.

I fail to see how the possibility of God either being the driving force behind the ban or failing to give the green light to overturn the ban equates to Him being racist.

There could be any number of reasons that we are simply unaware of or don't possess the capability of understanding that are completely removed from him having some dislike of a race of people.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

1. If there was a doctrine behind the policy, it appears to have been unrevealed to those who persisted it. If BRM is to believed, all doctrinal explanations (including his) for its existence were incorrect.

2. Not sure how you get to this one. The line I highlighted in the SWK manual is extremely vague. I think there was probably a complex set of variables the Lord was working with for lifting the restriction. I suppose I am naive enough to believe that if God wanted his pre-1978 Quorum to get in line earlier, he could've marshalled it.

As you noted yourself in the other thread, the doctrine vs. policy issue is quite clear: "Later we have hints of McKay himself alluding to asking God, via McMurrin, hero of CG. McKay told him: 'We believe that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will someday be changed.' (italics in original). (79-80)"

If you truly read, you can see how I "got to that one" - whether you agree with it or not is another story. There is ample evidence to (more than) suggest that the apostles, because of their prejudices, were not ready to accept blacks into the priesthood. You have chosen to accept an alternate, entirely speculative theory, that God has His reasons, which are unknown to us. If that is your position, it is impossible to argue against it, because it's an appeal to authority. You're saying, in essence, that you have no logical basis, and therefore rely on what is unknowable and unproveable.

Originally Posted by Tex

I think those are critical points to the discussion. I'm open to many possibilities about the origins and existence of the priesthood restriction, provided they don't factor God out of it.

Those points are not critical to the discussion because I believe either side will accept them as accurate. In fact, I very firmly believe that SWK was inspired by the Holy Ghost in his whole process of consensus-building. I also believe that DOM was inspired to take the issue up, as well. Apparently, it took quite a period of time for the inspiration to break down the existing prejudices.

Likewise, whether or not God told DOM that the time was right, the evidence is that the time was, in fact, not right. So, again, the argument does not turn on this issue, hence, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If you truly read, you can see how I "got to that one" - whether you agree with it or not is another story. There is ample evidence to (more than) suggest that the apostles, because of their prejudices, were not ready to accept blacks into the priesthood. You have chosen to accept an alternate, entirely speculative theory, that God has His reasons, which are unknown to us. If that is your position, it is impossible to argue against it, because it's an appeal to authority. You're saying, in essence, that you have no logical basis, and therefore rely on what is unknowable and unproveable.

Why is it "entirely speculative"? When we don't know, it's not speculative to say, "We don't know."

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Those points are not critical to the discussion because I believe either side will accept them as accurate. In fact, I very firmly believe that SWK was inspired by the Holy Ghost in his whole process of consensus-building. I also believe that DOM was inspired to take the issue up, as well. Apparently, it took quite a period of time for the inspiration to break down the existing prejudices.

Likewise, whether or not God told DOM that the time was right, the evidence is that the time was, in fact, not right. So, again, the argument does not turn on this issue, hence, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not God was involved in the timing of the decision is, in my opinion, a critical distinction. So the time wasn't right. How does that sideline the relevancy of God's involvement?